On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:14 PM, James Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > On 17/11/09, 17:17:30, Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> wrote regarding > Re: [csw-maintainers] Change python modules catalog names to have a py_ > prefix (instead of just py)?: > >> >> Having a consistent mapping between catalogname and >> >> packagenames is a Very Good Thing(tm), but I don't see >> >> how we can achieve it with the technology we have right now. >> > >> > It's completely achievable and always has been. People have >> > simply chosen not to. Don't put restricted characters in the >> > names, e.g. no '-' and '_'. > >> Well, some packages do use "-" in the package name. > > Only through choice, it's not the technology. > > >> All Maciej >> is aiming at is consistency. If we the mapping is "use _ on >> catalog names under condition x" and "package names are >> catalog name with '_' removed" that would ok also. > > A one way transform so I'd say not "between". You could exchange > the '_' for '-' but it wouldn't help me to cut and paste the names.
I like the idea of s/_/-/g when going from catalog names to pkgnames. Thissentenceismymainargumentforusingdashesitsjusthardtoread. I would really like to have a blessed word separator for the pkgnames. Sun packages uses cases, the have something like SUNWonewordSECONDWORD. I perceive it as ugly. Speaking of consistency... we can make the choice of being consistent with the existing packages[1] and not introduce dashes. Or we can use dashes for new packages, leaving the current ones alone, to be possibly changed later, if we decide it's important. The consistency I'm definitely for is that we achieve consensus, it gets documented, and we follow it. [1] Currently, there are 48 pkgnames using dashes, out of the total 2171. Maciej _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
